Missing Elements in Western Christianity

NOTA BENE: Please feel free to use any or all of the following discussions in your sermons even if you quote word for word. The time for judgment is drawing nigh. It is closer than when we first believed and many are presuming that they are going to heaven but actually "marching to their doom". May God anoint your message with power from on high.

*********************************************************************************

Over the the past 2,000 years since the time of Christ and the teaching of the Apostles, its seems that the Adversary has succeeded in his mission of distortion without most Christians being fully aware of such deterioration or degradation of the gospel message. Even scholars over the years have not seen the subtle distortions of Scripture caused by the huge gap of time since the original message, the introduction of extraneous traditions, cultic interpretations, highly opinionated pseudo-scholars, the bad witness of so-called "Christians" or even "saints", Bible translations and ignorance of the meaning and idioms of the original language of Scripture as well as ignorance of the environments and cultures, authors, audiences and purposes behind the writings of original inspiration have all but completely revised the simple message of God's love, purpose of creation, and kingdom project in history and Scripture.

This article will not deal with all that got lost but only the significant ones which have been notably removed or missing from the gospel message as originally declared by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Most significant are the following:

1. Life Exchange
2. Self-denial
3. Sanctification starts at the same time as Justification
4. The Expectation of Suffering, and
5. Pathway Disciplines to God's blessings

We are not proposing that these elements are missing in the discipleship programs of evangelical churches. What we contend is that these elements should be intentionally and deliberately brought to the attention of the sinner PRIOR to conversion and NOT AFTER. There should be NO INVITATION to accept Christ without these elements being clear to the would-be believer. Otherwise, we give a candy-coated gospel which may even deceive us that true conversion has taken place.  This is the biggest reason why discipleship becomes difficult since the church is actually trying to disciple spiritually dead people. Christ did not call us to "market" the gospel with fancy sales pitches and charismatic invitations. Christ called us to make disciples. At the very least, Christ called us to declare his word, and declare it accurately according to what God meant..

The reason we do not seem to see or discern these distortions compared to how the first century Christians received it, is mainly because the gospel message at that time amidst the context of their environment was immediately clear to the listener and the understanding was mainly correct because it is given under the right context of the first century environment, something that is not true today especially in the Western church.

Because of the dilution of the true gospel message, it would not be surprising that many Western Christians today who think they are Christian are sincerely mistaken, and that is sad, if not tragic because of the eternal consequences of ignorance. Having said that, we proceed to outline these missing essentials in the current gospel messages.

1. The Life Exchange

Note the following verses in the gospels which are so numerous, in fact, more than the number of times the Great Commandment was quoted (only 4 times).

*** Missing from the Western Gospel: The Life Exchange ***

Matthew 10:34-39 - Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 16:24-26 - For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mark 8:34-36 - For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

Luke 9:23-25 - For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?

Luke 17:34-36 - Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. (Reflect on v.32)

John 12:24-26 - Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Note that it is emphatically declared by Christ Himself in all of the gospels that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is willing to die for Christ and the gospel. Such is the essence of giving up your life or surrendering yourself to God or to the Lordship of Christ.

One has to give up his physical life in exchange for the eternal life that Christ offers. Without this exchange, there is no deal, no true salvation.

The western gospel does not emphasize this. Many times in evangelistic sermons, it is not even mentioned or articulated properly. Yes, preachers talk about surrender of life, or submission to the will of God but such statements are no longer as clear today as they were in the first century. The correct modern articulation is "dying for Christ" or "giving up your physical life in exchange for Christ's eternal life" in very much the same way that Jihadists are recruited to die for Allah, or communist recruits are taught to give up their lives to sacrifice for the cause.

The western gospel is cheap and costs almost nothing. They postpone commitment talk AFTER salvation (assuming true salvation occurred) instead of BEFORE resulting in fake Christians or lukewarm ones. And most of these are ignorant of the fact that they are doomed to an eternity without Christ because they are indirectly encouraged to live a life without Christ being truly Lord where they have lost their will to their Lord (another first century concept that is not clearly articulated today).

Salvation is truly "by grace" which means that we do not have to work for salvation through penance and self-mortification. But salvation is also "by FAITH" and that faith SHOULD BE similar to Abraham's faith which was willing to sacrifice the most important thing in his life - Isaac. It must be understood that in Abraham's time and context, people were prepared to die anytime. What they were not prepared for was giving up all they have or their most important possession(s) while they were still living. By FAITH really means you are willing to bet your life on a truth or even die for it. Only a few Western Christians understand it this way today. Let us make it crystal-clear: FAITH AND THE WILLINGNESS TO DIE AND GIVE UP YOUR PHYSICAL LIFE IS NOT WORK. There is no work of penance or indulgence here, just a simple but genuine commitment to what you believe AND CHRIST EXPECTS that at the point of salvation.

2. Self - Denial

Self-denial is impossible unless one has committed to the life exchange described above. Why? Because the struggle is much greater. The struggle should have been done at salvation and not after. Salvation should be given out as a "take ALL of it or leave ALL of it." There should be no halfway "take it or leave it." That has never been a Biblical option.

Let's face it, if one has given up his physical life to Christ, denying the self is just a follow up on a previous commitment instead of a new thing that would shock you.

Go back and review all the Life Exchange verses above and embedded in these principles is self-denial. Now once a person becomes a Christian, he is told in Romans 6 to reckon the old self dead to sin so that it can be alive to God. Christ always required that anyone who would follow him must first deny himself and take up his cross (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). If you remember the hermeneutic principle of knowing if God is shouting or whispering, the preponderance and repetition of verses cannot be any louder than God shouting what he requires! Self-denial has never been optional for anyone who wants to be a Christian.

So how does the Bible define or illustrate self-denial? Although the principle is evident in many Bible verses, mostly indirectly, a picture parable is worth a thousand words. Recall the parable of the Lord regarding a master and his servants in Luke 17:7-10:

7 “Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? 8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

Many miss the point of this important parable. In Western culture today, we talk about rights and we cling to our rights either as citizens, as human beings, as husbands, as wives, as people of a certain group, etc.

In the parable, however, the master is likened to Jesus or God while the servants are likened to Christians or disciples. The servants are already tired and weary from working in the fields or doing their chores for the whole day. Yet they are not expected to rest and please themselves until they have served the master until the master has no more need of their service.

The point of the parable is that in the same way that the servant lives only to please the master at the expense of his own convenience or comforts or even his very self, then a disciple is also expected to always live to please God, even denying himself and his comforts or leaving his comfort zone just to make the master pleased or happy. Yet today, millions of western Christians today would be absent from church mostly because they want to rest or watch Super Bowl or NBA Championship or they want to avoid someone in church. Even Jesus Christ himself would not recognize that such people are Christians since they have the loyalty of the world and the worldly system.

Bottom Line: Denying the self is the first step to pleasing the master. The inverse logic is true, whenever the master is not pleased or is disappointed, it is because we have not taken the first and necessary step of denying the self. Note that if one fails at self-denial, either he is not truly saved or on the way to losing it (Read the book of Hebrews, The central theme of the book of Hebrews TRULY UNDERSTOOD is "BE CAREFUL OR YOU COULD LOSE YOUR SALVATION"). In fact, Hebrews 6 and 9 even suggest that if you lose your salvation, it could be permanent!

3. Salvation cannot exclude Sanctification

Martin Luther was so focused on Justification by Faith that he is often, if not always, misunderstood to NOT include Sanctification by Faith. However, anyone reading in his biography regarding his struggles against the power and dominion of the sin nature will see that Luther himself experienced "full salvation" when he discovered that he could be free from the power of sin by faith, not just the penalty of sin. This is something that John Wesley discovered almost 20 years after he became ordained under the Anglican Church or the Church of England, again because of the distortions of an aberrant doctrine.

On the other hand, a diligent reading of church history will find that the Eastern Orthodox Christians who never went through the Reformation (precisely because they did not need one because their statement of faith has always included Salvation by Faith and Works!) never struggled with this issue.  Their declaration that salvation is by faith and works simply meant that salvation is by faith proven through good works. This implies that sanctification (the demonstration of good works and the fruit of the Spirit) was always part of salvation, i.e., salvation include justification and sanctification starting at the point of salvation.

The book of Romans, ironically the main source of the doctrine of Justification by Faith, is also the main source of Sanctification by faith and Paul insists that they occur and start simultaneously. In Romans 6:2, to answer the ridiculous question "should I sin more so that grace will abound more", Paul adamantly replies,

"2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

Notice the aorist verbs for "died", "baptized" into his death, "buried". Aorist tense means it occurred at a point in time IN THE PAST!  And this is Paul's introduction to the doctrine of Sanctification by faith in Romans 6, 7 and 8.

So, what happened in the past? Justification by faith. What happened in the past? We died, past tense. We were baptized into his death. Past tense. We were buried with him. Past tense. All of these past events occurred at the point of being justified by faith. That is what being born again is all about. The old self is dead and the new self is alive UNHINDERED in its growth by the old self if it is out of the way because it has been RECKONED DEAD.

Western Christianity today does not emphasize this NECESSARY and IMPORTANT point during evangelistic invitations to sinners seeking salvation. But it is no surprise because life-exchange is not preached and explained prior to salvation. All the Christian has is "cheap grace" instead of salvation, full and free.

Theologically speaking, Christ did not come just to free us from the penalty of sin for eternity. He came that we might have life and might have it abundantly (John 10:10). The only way we can have an abundant life is to live a life free from the POWER and dominion of sin or the sin nature. The sin nature is the old self in Romans 6, Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3. Even a surface study of these passages show that the old self (or the sin nature) CAN BE and SHOULD BE put off or reckoned DEAD while living this present life.

Yes though we are not yet freed from the PRESENCE of sin at salvation, Scripture clearly declares that we are freed from the POWER of sin at the point of true salvation.

4. Theology of Suffering

It is ironic and quite a contrast that whereas Christianity has a heritage of believers being persecuted violently to the point of death and martyrdom, present day Christians are scared even just to undergo a brief period pain or suffering. For readers who have reached this point in this article, the reason is obvious: fake, candy-coated salvation is what most western Christians really have because they have never gone through the life-exchange process and therefore, do not even expect that being a disciple of Christ requires self-denial and the anticipation of a life carrying their cross daily according to the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

The other big reason is the lack of awareness of what is called the "theology of suffering". There may have been various theologians who have tried to explain the theology of suffering but we simplify and make it practical here. We can outline the theology into just a few points:

1.  All men whether Christian or unsaved WILL undergo suffering in this world for the Bible actually assumes or even promises its constant and continuous occurrence in this life. Suffering is and will ALWAYS be part of human existence. Read the following authors in Scripture:
   Moses:   Psalm 90:10
   Job:   Job 5:7; 14:1
   King Solomon: Ecclesiastes 2:22-23; 6:2; 6:7; etc
   Jesus:   John 16:33
   Paul:   Acts 14:22; Romans 12:12
2. Suffering is always intended by God to draw us closer to him instead of us complaining and questioning his wisdom and love. Many western Christians tend to resent God and question his power and sovereignty and even love against suffering whenever they experience these hurting situations.
3. The PAIN of SUFFERING is INVERSELY related to our closeness to the Presence of God. Here is why we should not fear suffering, in fact, we should welcome it like St. Paul did in Philippians 3:11 where he was willing to give up everything that in life that matters, "that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death..." The following visual should help...
   
   It is the PAIN of suffering that no sane person wants to undergo or experience. It is the pain that we try to avoid. Well, suffering cannot be avoided but the pain of suffering depends on our closeness to God. The illustration reinforces the principle that suffering should draw us closer to God and the closer we are to God, the less we feel or experience the pain of our suffering. 

Christians experience the pain of suffering more if instead of drawing near, they run away from God increasing the distance from the Comforter of pain, and therefore increasing the pain.

5. Means of Grace = Pathways to God's blessings

One final principle which has been misconstrued by "justification by faith" demagogues who do not believe that salvation ALWAYS includes sanctification are what John Wesley called the "means of grace" which we now reword in modern English to be "pathways to God's richest blessings".  The following excerpt from a Methodist website explains it succinctly:

• "Courageous and forward-leaning mission congregations practice spiritual disciplines… John Wesley taught that God’s grace is unearned and that we were not to be idle waiting to experience grace but we are to engage in the means of grace. The means of grace are ways God works invisibly in disciples, hastening, strengthening; and confirming faith so that God's grace pervades in and through disciples.


• Works of Piety


• Individual Practices – reading, meditating and studying the scriptures, prayer, fasting, regularly attending worship, healthy living, and sharing our faith with others
  Communal Practices – regularly share in the sacraments, Christian conferencing (accountability to one another), and Bible study


• Works of Mercy


• Individual Practices - doing good works, visiting the sick, visiting those in prison, feeding the hungry, and giving generously to the needs of others
  Communal Practices – seeking justice, ending oppression and discrimination (for instance Wesley challenged Methodists to end slavery), and addressing the needs of the poor"

Clarification needs to be done lest anyone should assume that these are works that save or that these are rituals that have power in themselves like amulets or like vending machines where you  expect to get something just because you fed the machine some coins.

These means of grace were traditionally called spiritual disciplines (a scary word to post-modern Christians who receive a candy-coated gospel).

What we should seek:

The Goal of the Means of Grace or Pathways to God's richest blessings: Seeking God, seeking the face of God, seeking God’s face to shine upon us and be gracious unto us, seeking the very personal presence of God.

What we SHOULD NOT seek:

• Any special power in the works
• That the works will gain us points in heaven

Why we should do them: We miss out on God’s personal providence, we miss out on God’s blessings. God's logic is simple: You do the means, you get the blessing and promises attached to it. The inverse is just as true: If you do not get the promised blessings, it is because you did not do the means or you did not do it with the right mindset and faith.

The narrative of Mary and Martha found in Luke 10:38-42 is highly instructive. There was nothing inherently wrong with the focus of Martha. In fact, the Lord did not rebuke her. Instead, Jesus pointed out the "better way". Mary chose a Means of Grace, Martha did not. This has very little to do with priorities as much as it simply points out why one activity is "the better way" compared to the other.

The Armor of God in Ephesians 6 is another great illustration to drive home the point of why the Means of Grace are necessities in the Christian life and walk.  The armor of God can only be completed by diligent practice of the means of grace. How can you use the sword of the Spirit if you don't know the Word of God by heart? What is the shield of faith if you have not tested prayers being answered by God with perfect timing? How can you use the shoes of readiness for the gospel if you have not practice works of compassion. Yes, works of piety and works of compassion contribute greatly to getting the armor of God ready for any testing or trial.

Recall the time David went for Goliath and King Saul wanted him to use the king's armor? David obediently tried it on but what did he say after fitting it on? "Then David said to Saul, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them.”" (1 Samuel 17:39b). Likewise, it would be certain defeat for the Christian to go into battle with an armor that he has never tested!

So whether we are undergoing trials and testings or not, we need to test the armor regularly, in fact, daily, mainly through the means of grace or spiritual disciplines which are the pathways to God's blessings. Then when the time of tribulation and temptations dawn on us, we are indeed prepared for battle.

Advanced Hermeneutics: The Logical Fallacy of Foreknowledge as Traditionally Understood

FOREKNOWLEDGE: It is such a big word but means very little, almost insignificant. Yet classical theologians give it so much attention. Reminds me of Shakespear's title, "Much Ado About Nothing".

Foreknowledge or semblances of it are mentioned in Scripture only 5 times. 

Acts 2:23

 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

1 Peter 1:2 

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Peter 1:20

He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

Romans 8:29 

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Romans 11:2 

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?


The Fallacies of Traditional Understanding:

First of all, the traditional view of foreknowledge and the sovereignty of God has tried to differentiate between predestination and foreknowledge to justify that under their scenario, man still has free will. They say that God predestined what he foreknew as if that kind of philosophical gobbledygook would shed more light on that doctrine! I claim to be very good at logic but you lost me there!

However,  is there such an event or situation where God has foreknowledge but DID NOT CAUSE it?

Let's face it, foreknowledge, as traditionally understood doesn't add any good thing to our bible knowledge or doctrine except make us conclude (and logically so) that God, the great communicator, the perfect communicator, has again failed at revelation! The proponents of this meaning have to admit that, or they do not belong to this world or their minds are not created in God's image.

Either God's logic and thought process are the same as ours in scope and reason or rationality or he should not bother about revelation since we will not understand him anyway, and we should not bother to read his Word.

So traditionalists: kindly answer my original question (using your definition of foreknowledge) and please give me a simple answer that I can communicate to "little children". Is there any event or situation in the whole universe that God has foreknowledge of BUT DID NOT CAUSE THE EVENT?

OK, you have to admit at this point that any answer you give will sound funny and irrational. Maybe even distorted and who in this universe is the "master of distortion"???

Alternative Definition and Interpretation

Now let us look at the alternative interpretation which WILL NOT nor SHOULD NOT contradict the rest of Scripture nor the revealed nature of God: Most importantly, since we ought to love God with ALL OUR MIND according to the Great Commandment, it has to sound logical and reasonable, something that will satisfy our minds.

Let us review the passage in Acts 2:23 where Peter explicitly combined the word PLAN with the word FOREKNEW. Now try to substitute the word, PLANNED for every occurrence of FOREKNEW. Guess what, the concept becomes more understandable precisely because it is reasonable.

Now, the next question we have to address is WHY use the word FOREKNEW instead of PLANNED in the original Greek. By the way, there is no such equivalent word for FOREKNOW in the Hebrew, so either the Old Testament Hebrews had no concept of it OR, the Greek word as used by Paul are his translation of an old Hebrew concept in Greek terms.

Supercede, maybe, contradict, never!

We also have to apply our hermeneutic rule that the New Testament CANNOT and SHOULD not introduce any new concept to the Word of God (Jewish Scriptures), as personally acknowledged by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that contradicts it. The New Testament should be limited to simply explaining the Old Testament (like Sabbath and Tithes) or completing it (like Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God). Any new concept should never contradict any Old Testament concept or declaration.

I am putting myself on a limb here against the "New Testament ONLY" Christians but I have no apologies. AGAPE is not exactly God's love.  It is a Greek elaboration of KHECED which is as close as we can get to what God's love is because Hebrew is the language and context that God chose to use to describe his loving nature.

AGAPE is just the closest Greek word and the core element of KHECED. AGAPE is not emotional but KHECED is!!! So Agape is an anemic version of God's kheced.  This makes us realize that PHILEO and EROS are part of God's KHECED.  The New Testament agape either simply emphasized the core element, OR it was the closest translation of KHECED.  Any translator would understand this. For example, today we use the word, faith, for the Greek pisteuo and that is the closest English equivalent but it has to be explained well to even come close to what it really means. For in English, faith means so many things, including blind faith, which is totally absent in the original Greek meaning.

Lost in Translation

To further appreciate my point here, let us closely examine the Great Commandment in Deuteronomy 6:5 as translated in the Greek. Note that in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, we are to love God with 3 of our faculties:

Hebrew:  lebab (inner man), nephesh (soul,senses and emotions), meod (force, abundance)

The 70 scholars of the Septuagint translated these words as:

Septuagint: kardia (old translations: mind, new translations: heart), psyche (soul, disposition, psyche), dunamis (energy, strength, force).

The first thing to notice is that translations of the Hebrew words vary over time. Lebab and Kardia used to be translated as MIND. New translations adapt to changing cultures and usage of words so Kardia is now rendered HEART but originally, it meant the inner man which involves the will and generates the mindset. So no one-word translation can really offer justice to the original (one reason I insist of parallel versions for personal and group study).

Now, let us go through the gospel versions of the same command (Matthew 22:36, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27).

When Jesus Christ himself quoted the Great Commandment in Matthew 22:36, he even omitted STRENGTH! So, is this an anomaly in translation, or is it something else? Is this a misquote of the Word of God? or is this something else?

In the Mark (Peter's) version and Luke (the historian and chronicler), there are 4 faculties mentioned: HEART, SOUL, MIND, and STRENGTH.  Is this a misquote of the Word of God? or is this something else?

In all 3 gospels, however, God took great care NOT to omit HEART and MIND!!! So there is no excuse for insincerity in the Christian life, nor is there any excuse for ignorance of God's revelation. But I digress...

Back to Foreknowledge

This study emphasizes CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT and the fact that God is so intelligent and coherent that He will not contradict himself in any part of Scripture. The traditional understanding of FOREKNOWLEDGE violates both:

1. The traditional understanding is based on a rigid word study with blatant disregard of CONTEXT and the bigger Bible picture.
2. The traditional understanding contributes to contradictions of other parts of Scripture and the very nature of God. God is definitely and explicitly recorded to be Jealous, gets angry, gets surprised, and ESPECIALLY CHANGES HIS MIND etc. in various parts of Scripture. How will that support foreknowledge?  In their passion to elevate the concept of the sovereignty of God, Classical Theology, especially the Hyper-Sovereignty theologians end up depicting God as a GREAT HYPOCRITE who knows all of the future but pretends not to!!!

A Complex Word is, after all is said and done, really simple!

Foreknowledge is definitely similar to Planning. Foreknew is similar to Planned. Both have a reference to or a vision of the future. So why not just translate that word as planning?

Flavors!

Because we miss the flavors of the original language. Yes, it is planning and designing and intending on the part of God. However, foreknowledge simply includes the certainty and definiteness that God WILL SEE TO IT that what he had planned is exactly what is going to transpire.

I said "WILL SEE TO IT" because even if God did not originally CAUSE the event to happen (and this is paradoxically the ONLY CORRECT assumption by the traditional meaning), He will make sure that it will (NOTE THE FUTURE TENSES) indeed transpire without magically manipulating hearts or forcing hearts to his will.

So "in the foreknowledge of God" should simply be read as "in the deliberate planning of God and with the guarantee that it is certain to transpire". Now, substitute this for all the occurrences of the word in the passages listed above.

A word on Predestination

We believe in predestination including the traditional meaning and interpretation thereof.  However, contrary to the traditional application of its meaning, it can ONLY be applied to events that God has already revealed in his word, like the Second Coming of  Christ, the New Jerusalem, the end times, etc. Nothing else is predestined apart from what is revealed and I have seen nor read nothing in Scripture that can contradict this statement.

God does not know because he does not NEED to know nor does he care to know, how many cups of coffee I will be drinking 500 days from now or how many ounces of toothpaste I will be using to brush my teeth tonight.

If the traditionalists insist that God cannot help but KNOW, then they are really saying that God cannot help but be a hypocrite.

What God has fore-ordained or predestined is guaranteed to happen. That proves the faithfulness of God to his word. Moreover, we can apply that same guarantee to God's promises. All of God's promises in Scripture come with His 100% guarantee! What he has NOT predestined will occur almost at random since God himself foreordained randomness. Free will is not true free will if God has any control over it. Randomness is not truly random if God interferes with it.

Simple God-given LOGIC!!!

As far as my knowledge of God in his Word, so far, I have a satisfied mind! Thank God!

Advanced Hermeneutics: Alternative Interpretations That Make Biblical Sense 1

This article discusses advanced hermeneutics. I say "advanced" because I have yet to hear seminaries or read commentaries that demonstrate that they can think boldly outside-the-box, stop making excuses for the Word of God being difficult or seemingly contradictory, and make theology truly a study of WHAT GOD SAYS instead of developing their personal opinions about God and making Scripture adjust to it. This is not for the faint of heart, but any true Wesleyan with some flavor of Openness will easily grasp the concepts.

Isaiah 37: Did God know the future when he said what would happen to Rabshekah?

Right after King Hezekiah's prayer for deliverance, God sent Isaiah to relay to the king what would happen to the forces of the Assyrians. Was this a demonstration of God's foreknowledge? or, was it something else.

The hyper-Grace or hyper-Sovereignty people would immediately assume that foreknowledge or predestination come into play here. Despite their good intentions to maintain the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, they are actually falsely elevating it to a level that is both unrealistic, unreasonable and primarily unbiblical.

1. If foreknowledge or predestination was in play here, then why are God's declarations a RESPONSE by God instead of an INITIATION of the event, i.e., God making the exact same declaration as soon as Rabshekah entered the territory of Israel so that the hyper-Sovereignty people would be more impressed?
2. If God truly had foreknowledge or would predestine these events, why didn't he do it even before Rabshekah's threats? Why would he even permit Rabshekah to invade the area in the first place, why not send him to China instead so Jerusalem would have peace and Rabshekah would not even be in their consciousness? Where is the wisdom there?

For us who are hyper-Love and hyper-Free-will, if I were to coin such contrary terminology, we can clearly see an alternative interpretation which is actually more logical, more reasonable and more biblically consistent with the character of YHWH.

1. The declaration is simply God's INTENTION of what He would do IN RESPONSE (v.21 "Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria") to Rabshekah's threats. "I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David" (v.35). Note the phrase, "I will"!!!
2. God fulfills his promise that if those who fear Him call upon His Name, He will deliver them from their troubles.(Psalm 34:17 and many other related verses).
3. God proves both his steadfast love (for the sheep of His pasture) and faithfulness (to his word or promises).
4. God exercises biblical Omni-competence, that he can handle anything even any surprising thing that arises even if he is blind-folded and with his hands tied behind his back and still come out victorious!
5. Just based on those three points above, we get revelation and blessing in a way which the hyper-Sovereignty interpretation does NOT give in a clear logical way.

True (honest) hermeneutics begins with listening to God speak WITHOUT EDITING WHAT GOD IS SAYING and not trying to find consistency with our cherished doctrines BY EDITING WHAT WE ARE HEARING OR RE-INTERPRETING ACCORDING TO OUR BELIEF. Many times, even the best scholarship loses the blessing just because of the wrong mindset.


Luke 10:20-23. Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him when he said these words?

Jesus clearly addressed his disciples, which included Judas Iscariot in verse 20, "...do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”" Then again in verse 23, Jesus told his disciples (which included Judas Iscariot), "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see!"

It is quite easy to see that Jesus could not have waited for Judas to be absent to speak these words. Obviously, Judas was present in this remarkable events. So how can someone who would eventually betray Jesus be blessed by Jesus with these words.  Note especially, "rejoice that your names (including Judas Iscariot who was part of those being addressed by Jesus) are written in heaven".

Wow, what an affront to the "once saved, always saved" believers.

The hyper-Grace/hyper-Sovereignty perspective would have no logical interpretation for this as it obviously points to the Son of God making a clear mistake based on their theology of Sovereignty, predestination and God-in-total-control. Yes, they can make excuses and work around the actual truth of the event but whatever it is, it will not sound logical, reasonable nor biblical.

From our perspective, however, there is logic and consistency with our established doctrines of God's love and man's free will. Judas Iscariot clearly desired to be a disciple of Christ under the belief (as ALL the other disciples) that Christ was indeed the Messiah and Son of God. So he was indeed initially blessed. Do not forget that JUDAS WAS CHOSEN by Christ Himself! He joined primarily for political power. He wanted to rule with the Messiah when he delivers Israel from Roman rule! Unfortunately, however, Judas later found out that Christ was not a political messiah and this greatly disappointed him. We later find out that he also had minimal intention for life transformation as evidenced by his stealing from their moneybag (John 12:6).  Only after he witnessed the suffering of the Christ he betrayed that he seemed to have gotten the point of Christ's incarnation and clearly got convicted of sending an innocent man to his death. Disgusted with himself and the repercussions of what he had done, he committed suicide. Quite common sense and logical, right? ....and nothing in the written word to contradict this interpretation!

None of Christ's disciples did get the point of his incarnation until after the resurrection and Christ's re-opening of the Scriptures to them. Unfortunately, Judas was already gone and never got a hold of the divine perspective on Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.


Was Judas' betrayal of the Christ purely his accountability, or did God have a part by ordaining this to happen and choosing Judas for the role (poor Judas?).

The hyper-Sovereignty perspective would predictably choose the predestination angle of a "God who controls everything". They may seem logical for a "sovereign God" to do but it remains inconsistent with the unfailing Love of God which King David praises over and over again in his Psalms, "The steadfast love of God endures forever and his faithfulness to all generations". RARELY, if ever, did David praise God for his so-called "absolute sovereignty" or aspects of it.  And even the aspects of sovereignty that David praised was mostly in the context of God's KHECED and EMETH.

These qualities or attributes of God of love and faithfulness cannot be logically and soundly defended under the premise of hyper-sovereignty if we erroneously stick to the claim that God pre-ordained Judas to betray the Christ. It just does not make sense in any language, in any world, in any context other than a direct contradiction of the main attribute of God which is love.

Now, re-read our alternative interpretation in the previous section and you find consistency, logic, reason and even SIMPLICITY of doctrine of the level that can be revealed to "little children". Luke 10:21, "In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will".

The only biblical hints that Christ knew in advance that Judas would betray him are in John 6:70-71. However, this could alternatively be timed close to the end of His ministry in which case the Christ's knowledge of human nature and months of history observing the behavior of Judas made him aware that this was the bad apple.  Then Jesus knowledge of prophecy would make even a wise human guess that Judas was going to fulfill it. We are not discounting the work of the Holy Spirit or the closeness of the Son to the Father. However, this could be alternatively interpreted to say that Jesus' certainty was caused by the confirmation of the either the Holy Spirit, the Father or both.

The other reference is in the book of Acts 1:16 where Peter mentions that Judas was the fulfillment of David's prophecy. Again, this is not necessarily predestination. Even foreknowledge is not involved as Peter was stating these AFTER THE FACT and based on his "new" incite on prophecy, but I would boldly ascertain that there was no specific human in mind when these prophecies were uttered or written.

It simply means that "in the fullness of time", Judas came into the picture and developed into the traitor.  We are not ignoring divine intervention here. In fact we believe that there is always divine intervention when timing of fulfillment is perfect. However, NOT in the way that classical theology or the hyper-Sovereignty perspective proposes. This is because we believe in God who does not manipulate hearts directly because of his creation of true free will.  Instead, we see a God who may be creating circumstances that would coax or even exploit what was already developing in Judas to the point of betrayal. But pre-ordaining or manipulating hearts directly is inconsistent with the nature of YHWH. In fact, even the devil cannot manipulate hearts, so he works in the mind, distorting truths and tempting man towards anything that would displease God and even make him pull away voluntarily from the Kingdom of God.


The Hardening of Pharoah's heart

This has been another biblical statement that the hyper-Sovereignty people believe confirms specific predestination.  May I remind them that such falsehood undermines the true nature of God and the KHECED of God.  If such falsehood is to be accepted as truth, then the whole Word of God collapses. It is no longer revelation as it confuses as about the nature and love of God. This is one obvious logical point that I am completely surprised that many classical scholars CANNOT or REFUSE to see. How can God say that he loves us when he defines it as KHECED or AGAPE in 1 Corinthians 13 but demonstrates it in an OBVIOUSLY CONTRADICTORY MANNER even if it is just one case (in fact MORE THAN TWO cases, Pharoah, the Egyptiians, Judas, etc.).  THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTION IN SCRIPTURE TO THE DEFINITION AND DEMONSTRATION OF LOVE BY GOD!!!

If there is any exception then God loses his EMETH or FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD. God says he is Love but that statement can no longer be trusted if there is even one exception, because who knows if one of us could be the next exception???

Praise be to God! There is an alternative logical, reasonable and biblical interpretation that is simple enough for "little children".

The word of God is written in Hebrew in the Torah and Koine Greek in Romans 11 where Paul mentions the hardening of Pharoah's heart again in Romans 9:17.

First we analyze the Hebrew part where in Exodus chapters 4 to 14 where we have 19 occurrences of the word or phrase that declares that God hardened pharoah's heart. There is another reference to God hardening Sihon's heart in Deuteronomy and there may be more.

Now we have to note that the ancient language of Hebrew was like Chinese characters. They were more like pictures than words unlike the Greek which is closer to English.  When speaking in pictures, the only way you can really communicate is by knowing the context of what is being written or spoken.  This was the best, shortest way to describe in the simple Hebrew language that God worked it out so that the Egyptians and Pharoah would harden their hearts. God may well have arranged the circumstances to challenge Pharoah's very proud ego, provoking Pharoah to harden is heart more.  This is a more logical explanation that is consistent with the nature of God as declared and demonstrated in the rest of the Bible record.

However, the last judge and prophet of Israel, Samuel,  explicitly declares the CORRECT interpretation of these events when he questioned Israel's faithfulness in 1 Samuel 6:6, "Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?"

So why do we listen to those loquacious and long-winded expositors who say otherwise? The hardening of heart was entirely Pharoah's accountability. This is our AHA moment. Samuel was comparing what the people of Israel both individually and as a group to that of the Egyptians and Pharoah's hardening of the heart. Clearly, Pharoah was entirely responsible for the hardening of his heart!  No buts, ifs nor any other faulty assumptions.  Need I explain more?

Let us focus on the hermeneutic lesson here:

The context is ALWAYS the basis of the individual words or phrases of Scripture. 
There is always the bigger picture. The view of the forest should explain the individual trees and each tree must confirm our view of the forest. Which brings us to the next hermeneutic point...

The big picture enables a better understanding of the smaller pictures.
The correct theological framework enables a better understanding of the chapters and passages of Scripture AND the smaller verses should not contradict the small contexts and the small contexts should not contradict the bigger contexts, etc.

Here is why we see that the hyper-Sovereignty perspective has a faulty theological framework as it breeds contradictions in the individual passages of Scripture or passages that cannot be logically interpreted.

Our theological framework so far seems solid:

"God's purpose/project in history is to create a people of faith he would call his "kingdom" comprised of people who would love him back out of their own free will in the same way that God loves them out of His own free will. Since Love and Relationship is God's primary concern, he has to RISK creating GENUINELY autonomous and unrestricted free-will. Since free will has to be genuine and autonomous, God gives up control over the heart of man. Otherwise, common sense tells us that love or relationship is a FAKE. Because Love and Relationship is God's primary concern, he looks on the heart of man and the condition of man's heart is the only basis for determining his eternity, whether he goes to heaven (kingdom extension) or hell. Salvation starts with surrendering our free will back to God by acknowledge Him as our Lord. Only then may we accept Him as Savior. This renders utterly useless any lip service or insincere ceremonial activities to the all-knowing and highly intelligent YHWH."

This alone is the reason WHY the Chief End of Man (non-Calvinist) is none other than the Greatest commandment (Loving God truly and loving others truly the way God loves) mentioned 4 times in Scripture and explained 3 times by the Son of God Himself!  That seems more authoritative than the Westminster Confession or the Heidelberg Cathecism. Now, try to use this framework to analyze why God does what he does in any Scripture passage.


How will God derive his 144,000 in Revelations 7 and 14

This question was asked in one of our inductive Bible study lessons. The expected answer, of course, was that the Sovereign God had already chosen the individuals comprising the 144,000 even before they were born.  The surprising response I gave was more logical and closer to the nature of God and here it is.

"God has determined that there will be 144,000 from the twelve tribes who will be like Billy Graham in the last days. No contest there. However, he has not chosen who they are. He has only planned that they will be Jews from the twelve tribes. Since a thousand years is like one day to God, this means that God will patiently wait for the 144,000 Jewish hearts to mature to the level he desires. Only at that point will he inspire these thousands to deliver his gospel message to the rest of the world.  Of course we do not deny that there will be some divine intervention since the timing has to be perfect BUT NOT NECESSARILY TO THE POINT THAT GOD HAS PRE-SELECTED AND WILL MANIPULATE LIKE MAGIC THE HEARTS OF 144,000 specific JEWS with their names already known TO DO HIS WILL. Such a view will make us doubt if God's revelation of his nature through the Bible is reliable or not!"

CONCLUSION:

When we attempt to read or study Scripture, we should recognize the following:

1. God is present right in front of you immediately after you read the first word of Scripture or utter the first word of prayer. You are standing on holy ground in the presence of God.
2. We have to be open to what God wants to say regardless of our cherished doctrines. Bible ALWAYS trumps doctrine. That is true wisdom and obedience.
3. Doctrine should be revised to be consistent with the revealed Word, in the same way that the New Testament should be interpreted in such a way that it DOES NOT and SHOULD NEVER contradict the Old Testament which is the Word of God authenticated by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 5:17-20
4. When we meet contradictions or difficulties based on our doctrine, it may be time to revise it. Why? Because God's word is God's revelation. When we read it and are still confused, then either God has failed to reveal or we have failed to hear what God is saying. Take your pick which one is more logical!

God does need our participation in protecting his sovereignty. Man experiences God's sovereignty whether man agrees or not.

What God wants is our participation in protecting his integrity by insisting that God's faithfulness to his Word endures to all generations. When Satan wins at either distortion of God's word or distortion of God's  nature and attributes, then man is led astray from the narrow way that leads to priceless eternal life. The narrow way is already hard to find. Let us not complicate it farther by confusing those who desire to enter when they have found it.

Any man or even Christian, for that matter, who is confused by God's word or character cannot have true faith. For how can anyone have any solid faith on a confusing "truth"? Like the foolish man at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, his house is built on sand.

Please Use YOUR Brains! - Part 2

It might just be me but this could be a profound observation for those of you who are objective theologians:

Observe the theology and lifestyle of Messianic Jews or Jews who convert to Christianity...their theology is very much Arminian and even Wesleyan emphasizing the steadfast love of God and his faithfulness to all generations.

Now, observe the theology of Muslims, especially the Jihadists...their theology is similar to Hyper-Calvinism emphasizing the glory of God and that he controls everything including the future. "God is Great" slogan (Sovereignty) or "It is the will of God"! So they commit jihad declaring "god is great" and suicide ("it is the will of god") as long as their god gets the credit or the world knows they did it in the name of Allah.

So which theology do you think is God-made vs. man-made???

Just a thought for those of you who claim to be objective, BIBLICAL theologians who can think outside the box, see the big picture, and really think things through...

We will never know everything about God. Really???

There is always a classical theology paradox which presupposes that man can NEVER know everything about God. While this may be absolutely true, I react to the logical repercussion in biblical interpretations that make that cliche a fallback for a lack of understanding of divine revelation.

Recall at least 2 key verses to expound this point.

Deuteronomy 29:29 (NIV) states, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law".

Classical interpretations put too much emphasis on the first part of the verse, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" and almost totally disregard the profound implications of the second part of that wonderful verse, "but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law"!

The "things revealed TO US (to Moses, to Israel, the Old Testament, even the New Testament!)" BELONG(!!!) to us! Belong means WE OWN IT! Belong means we SHOULD master it, we should be or have "doctorates" in it. For the things revealed, there should be no gray areas, no mysteries, no excuses!

Hence, man should be able to KNOW EVERYTHING about God in the very aspects of God that He has explicitly revealed in Scripture. The problem with the classical excuse is that it proposes to beg ignorance in all the so-called mysteries like the Trinity, God's Love, God's jealousy, God's change of mind in numerous occasions in Scripture when IN FACT, they have already been explicitly REVEALED or UNRAVELED, if you will. If you have been a reader of this blog, all of this items have been unequivocally addressed without excuses, and without any arrogance for that matter. Of what practical use is revelation if not much is revealed? What kind of logic proposes that revelation from the Divine can never be completed without completely insulting the Source of Revelation as lacking in communicating abilities????

A very important sub-point in the second part of that verse is that our "complete" understanding of God's revelation is the very foundation or basis for correct and true obedience to God's word, as well as the solid foundation for our faith to work. If we fail to interpret God's revelation correctly, then our obedience is not well-founded and may even redound to or be utter disobedience. Our faith will always have lingering doubts. The biggest interpretive failure in classical theological discussions is to deny that there is one correct interpretation of God's explicit revelations. This makes them doubly accountable to God for fundamentally teaching the wrong material and content of Scripture by leaving the right interpretation in limbo and dismissing things as "mysteries", that we will never know God or His will.

The second verse is one of my favorites, Jeremiah 9:23, 24:

²³ This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
²⁴ but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.

If we were to boast of anything or any accomplishment in this life, the Lord does not place much value in either wisdom, strength or power, or riches. What God values is that we UNDERSTAND and KNOW Him. Let us apply some common-sense logic to the assumptions of this verse.

First, God will never expect of us anything that we can NEVER do as humans. Obviously, knowing and understanding Him is NOT nor NEVER something we cannot do! It is, IN FACT, something we can DO and accomplish and even COMPLETE in this life! Think about it.

Second, God specified which areas of theology or "knowing God" we should be able to COMPLETELY know in this life. They are God's (loving-)kindness [kheced], justice (or judgment) [mishpat], and righteousness [tsadaqah]. According to this verse, if we know these three aspects of God, AND WE SHOULD, then we can claim to KNOW and UNDERSTAND GOD!!! [As a footnote, we should therefore avoid Bible teachers who never talk about sin and judgment or righteousness. Most modern day teachers simply dwell of knowing love and nothing else, that is not the complete revelation of God.]

Third, God declares that it is His particular DELIGHT that we know and understand Him in these specific areas. What better emphasis can anyone put than the very words that God used in this verse!

The Goal of True Theology is Knowing The True God

It is a common presumption of many theologians and students of theology that such a pursuit as THEOLOGY is one where we analyze logical and natural evidences to derive WHO God is or if there are many gods.

Western religious thought has finally "logically" matured to the point of either concluding or assuming that there is just ONE God. Such a presumption may be attributed mainly to Judeo-Christian teaching and partially through the monotheistic propositions of Platonic theosophy. Prior to these two schools of theological thought, most civilizations were either polytheistic or pantheistic. In fact during Paul's day in the book of Acts chapter 17, while in Athens, there were still strong evidences that Platonic theology was ignored by the majority of the Hellenistic world.

Everyone has their own opinion about God, both Christians and pagans. When does this stop and who is right and which is the correct theology.

If theology is the pursuit of the understanding of God, we must first make sure that we are studying the One True God who is none other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the I AM.

Of all religious documents that exist, only the Judeo-Christian Bible claims to be words coming out of God's own mind and heart. The theological propositions of these writings claim to be no less than divine revelation. Most other religious writings are were simply penned by individuals simply opining about what they think God is or should be. Many others are traditional beliefs, the content of which defy both reality and history in many of its premises or historical or scientific contexts. a theory and not a law. In fact, much of the Old Testament historical and archeological claims have been verified even when they were initially opposed by the existing sciences of the day, and even when they were initially set out to be disproven.

The Bible on the other hand, has never been conclusively proven to be false either in its historical contexts nor its propositional concepts. Even creation, for example, cannot be contradicted and evolution has been shown to have too many contradictions that it has remained a theory and NOT a law. This is where, for example, Mormon theology is suspect as its historical context are not verifiable and can fall in the realm of fiction.

Theology, therefore, to be completely meaningful and worth any value has to be the study of the ONE True God and not just the study of someone's god.

For the Christian Theologian, theology has to be the pursuit of God according to Jeremiah 9:23,24. God has to be discovered from the viewpoint of inspired scripture and not just any philosophical writing like those of Plato or Aristotle. This means that even if these great Greek philosophers discussed a monotheistic deity, their concept of God is still sans revelation and must be considered faulty or flawed.

This implies that Hellenistic philosophical concepts of God's attributes including timelessness, immanence, transendence, impassive, changelessness, sovereignty, etc have to be discarded or reinterpreted in the light of what Scripture reveals.

To know the one true God, one has to discover Him through the pages of revelation and with the eyes and viewpoint of a Jew. Any other viewpoint will miss too much from the revealed word and, at worst, will lead to misleading concepts of God which would be logically tantamount to idolatry, the sin of creating one's own God apart from revelation.

Now you can see quite clearly why this blog on relational theology rejects or defies classical Christian theology in many ways. Many modern concepts of God and His attributes are legacies of the Christian scholastics like Aquinas, who possibly wanted to have a concept of God that would be acceptable to a predominantly Hellenistic intelligentsia; and that is their greatest downfall, ignoring revelation in favor of pleasing the prevaling and popular bias of those who were the known intellectuals of their world.

It is unfortunate that many in our modern Christian theological world do not see this and accept these classical concepts of God hook, line and sinker. Theology of any form should always be discussed with skepticism knowing that God can defend His own and True theology will prevail amid all the muck.

Relational Theology as presented here seems to survive any skeptical onslaught. I have opened this blog to generate challenges from any quarter. So far, there has been a lot of silence even from the theologies I explicitly criticize.